Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa Barbara
California Supreme Court
CROSS-APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. Prank P. Oster, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George H. Gould, R. B. Canfield, and William G. Griffith, for Montecito Valley Water Company, Appellant and Respondent. The defendants had no right to injure the plaintiff’s right to the surface flow by subterranean tunnels. (Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 542; City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 635; Vineland Irr.
Read the full summary
CROSS-APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. Prank P. Oster, Judge presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George H. Gould, R. B. Canfield, and William G. Griffith, for Montecito Valley Water Company, Appellant and Respondent. The defendants had no right to injure the plaintiff’s right to the surface flow by subterranean tunnels. (Gould v. Eaton, 117 Cal. 542; City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 635; Vineland Irr. Dist. v. Azusa Irr. Co., 126 Cal. 486; Proprietors of Mills v. Braintree Water Supply Co., 149 Mass. 478;1 Hart V. Jamaica…
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff claims, and the court found it to be the owner of fifteen miner’s inches of the natural flow of the Cold Springs Branch of Montecito Creek, which waters it carried away to non-riparian lands and sold for beneficial purposes to the inhabitants of Montecito. At different times three separate and independent tunnels were driven by the defendants upon lands owned by them and contiguous to the creek. The portals of these tunnels were above the bed of the creek. They were driven through the native rock, in a northerly direction, following generally the line of the creek and the main…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Katz v. WalkinshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Peabody v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Wadleigh v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.